MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxhFbFmUnCVg=be_e+c_GEr9KizMt_7cGwJz__E9o7MJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130226070247.GA14094@gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFxdR6_8734T9y2Edyotf0u-SgPPgjazFuQa1atSUGK9LA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFziwaP21NVyVb_UP3okiX7fXoo4DQ7zudhxAwPM10_Tuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABPqkBR2HeDmuTVg5RA=5D0xXJbXxqSxMDf7MW0iCGnurQb7jw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFzDMwHyPxqxNKRz0Y3vFhZOqtHMvPbvNXAD6C+-_=UAhg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABPqkBTTY7RBSXJw4kqdd0c07Ykz-Wy8TFUQ+hzBSn=5v2yz2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABPqkBTh1Fph=GTOzN_2Q9coqLpiR3hcqVk1PBubUUEO7D=zsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABPqkBTQCce3ve9cP-Ajbtb7FSVggB_bL7Dmpq8KeG_7Gfx0Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABPqkBRuKzbxTr73LDpgLnq4WhadZf9VErjjcTMHoMWRwzhDGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABPqkBRvgCsZGkS=9CO_cRLBMG7XSiaxKz8moMW6Yp3CwTXEyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFxhFbFmUnCVg=be_e+c_GEr9KizMt_7cGwJz__E9o7MJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:01:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CABPqkBRHt=84gZ2-g-CC2jmV5_pnZ9qJA2bne_oXsLmrFhOomw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] perf fixes
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2224
Lines: 54

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> I bet if you force the affinity of your perf record to be on
>> a CPU other than CPU0, you will not get the crash.
>>
>> This is what I am seeing now. I appears on resume,
>> CPU0 hotplug callbacks for perf_events are not invoked
>> leaving DS_AREA MSR to 0.
>>
>> Can you confirm on your machine?
>
> I'm not even going to bother confirming it, because I think you're
> right, and I think the reason is clear: the DS initialization code
> uses the CPU_UP notifiers.
>
Ok, I instrumented the pebs_enable() function and I confirm that
DS_AREA=0 on resume.

So what seems broken here for me is that on suspend, the cpu notifier
ends up calling fini_debug_store() to clear DS_AREA for CPU0. But
on resume, the same notifier does NOT call the init_debug_store().
I don't understand this asymmetry. You either do neither or you do
both.


> And that's sufficient for CPU hotplug, which is what suspend/resume
> ends up doing for all but the boot CPU. But the boot CPU is not
> hotplugged.
>
> Using CPU_UP notifiers is wrong, and they get called too late anyway.
>
> The code should use a real resume method. Or, better yet, just do it
> right, and do it from __restore_processor_state().
>
> Those f*cking CPU notifiers are a pain in the ass, and the tend to be
> invariably broken, and they have their own idiotic hacks that are
> equally broken (ie that x86_pmu_notifier() thing seems to make up its
> own suspend/resume with
> "x86_pmu.cpu_prepare/cpu_starting/cpu_dying/cpu_dead" things.
>
> I guess we could make the BP do a fake cpu notifier thing around the
> suspend of the boot processor as well, but most of the per-CPU stuff
> seems to be perfectly fine without it (ie mtrr, apic, etc etc all use
> the suspend/resume infrastructure) and doesn't need that kind of
> stuff.
>
>                 Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/